Mandate to buy gun liability insurance?

[Chakravartin]

max wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
[quote=cbelt3]
It's part of the 'make it too expensive to own a gun legally' concept. Ditto the tax on ammunition and such. Back-alley methods to result in confiscation of our firearms.

I despise back-alley methods. You want to ban all guns ? Then admit it, and try and do it. Legally.

So mandating auto insurance is OK but firearm insurance should be verboten? You should know better, Roger, that is one reason the state clearly states AND repeats over and over, "driving is a privilege, not a right", weapon ownership happens to be specifically mentioned in Constitution...
So does Copyright expiration. Specifically mentioned. Must be for a limited time... which the founders clearly meant to mean "brief." Yet, the SCOTUS has written that anything short of infinite duration is A-Okay because originalism and textualism bow to the almighty dollar.

So, yeah... under this Court you can stretch it any way you want so long as you can make a case for someone getting rich off of it. Get one insurance company to write an amicus and gun insurance will be totally legal, stamped and sealed by the highest constitutional authority.

[rjmacs]

Ca Bob wrote:
It's like the old saying that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Think of this as a tax on gun ownership, and the same arguments apply.

Bob, you have to realize that this old line is nearly always taken out of context. The quote "The power to tax involves the power to destroy" was coined in 1819 by Justice John Marshall, in a case that established that states and localities cannot use taxation as a political weapon against the federal government. It doesn't apply here in the least.

[Spock]

Maximum firepower with zero responsibility is the gun owners wet dream.

[Black]

cbelt3 wrote:
FWIW.. it's important to recognize that auto insurance came about due to tort issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_ins..._insurance

However if a firearm is used to injure or kill people, there are existing criminal laws to handle the problem. Many states allow 'personal bonds' to be posted in the place of insurance.

Requiring insurance as a financial guarantee against the commission of a heinous crime is a bit odd. Since I assume we're not selling 'license to kill', I'm back to my original thesis.

It's a back-channel way to ban gun ownership.

Exactly like mandatory auto insurance is a back-channel way to ban car ownership.
And mandatory health insurance is a back-channel way to ban health.

[Black]

Spock wrote:
Maximum firepower with zero responsibility is the gun owners wet dream.

Don't forget socialism. The gun nuts want gun ownership to be equally affordable to all.
Would that require a new government agency to administer and new taxes to fund?

[Ted King]

Bill in NC wrote:
Whether one agrees with it or not, Heller is the law of the land.

How do you mandate insurance given the above?

And Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. I don't see how this is any more limiting of rights than a mandate that abortions be done in licensed clinics. What if you can't afford the cost of an abortion in a licensed clinic?

[SDGuy]

davester wrote:
...The car analogy is perfectly apt in this case. The only reason to exclude it would be that you don't wish that were so.

odd...I don't recall stating an opinion on this subject, one way or the other...

[$tevie]

Maybe the insurance is meant to protect the victims of gun shows. :-)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01...?mobile=wp

[August West]

odd...I don't recall stating an opinion on this subject, one way or the other...

Odd, I never was licensed for psychiatry, but I'm educated enough to recognize passive-aggressive behavior.

[Black]

August West wrote:

odd...I don't recall stating an opinion on this subject, one way or the other...

Odd, I never was licensed for psychiatry, but I'm educated enough to recognize passive-aggressive behavior.

Why is that odd?